About your Search

20121108
20121116
STATION
MSNBC 8
MSNBCW 8
CSPAN 4
CSPAN2 3
WHUT (Howard University Television) 1
LANGUAGE
English 31
Search Results 0 to 30 of about 31 (some duplicates have been removed)
about another foreign policy expert, in this case condoleezza rice, back in 2005. here is mccain on susan rice. take a listen. >> susan rice should have known better, and if she didn't know better, she's not qualified. she should have known better. i will do everything in my power to block her from being the united states secretary of state. >> okay. mortal sin, deal breaker, end of her career because john mccain said she had gotten the wrong brief and delivered the wrong brief. however, mccain had a very different reaction back in 2005 when condoleezza rice was nominated for secretary of state despite her direct involvement in the country's iraq policy, mccain trucked up opposition to her nomination to bitter innocence over losing an election. interesting. let's watch. >> i wonder why we're starting this new congress with a protracted debate about a foregone conclusion. i can only conclude we're doing this for no other reason than because of lingering bitterness at the outcome of the elections. >> talk about a self-indictment. mccain was asked about the contradiction this mo
in the foreign policy land. many liberals would have a critique of some of his lack of process in some of the foreign policy stuff. is part of what he's saying that the recalcitrance of the republican house might bring out that aspect of president obama? >> well, i think there are two things. first, i think steve is absolutely correct. the republicans forced his hand. by showing that they were going to be entrenched opposition that could not be reformed or changed, he had to assert himself. the debt ceiling debacle was the place where it all came together because i think the country saw how the resistance would not move and his progressive allies were profoundly disappointed that he was, in fact, rolled by the republican issue. so i think in the foreign policy realm he was determined to show that as a democratic president he could be strong and obviously his effort to get osama bin laden was a big piece of that. but his policy towards syria, his policy toward the iraq war, his effort with afghanistan was all designed to blunt that effort. >> that's true. >> as much as he is committed t
spending, we have to change our foreign policy and we have to reassess the whole entitlement system and they are not in the mood to do that because there are too many politically that say, you can't touch my program. touch somebody else's. that is the reason we are going to continue to do this and things will get worse until the crisis gets so bad we have a currency crisis, interest rates go up, we will have to revamp. that will not happen in january. it's all going to -- they are going to pass the buck. host: let's go to the phones and see what the viewers have to say. barb is from our democrats line. good morning. caller: i think all of the bush tax cuts should be eliminated and those dollars be applied to the deficit. for the areas under sequestering, i think they should eliminate the requirement that everything to be cut across the board and let the defense department to determine what they need and what they do not need. the same with the discretionary areas. guest: i agree with half of what you say. i think the military is a big problem. both sides really did not want to touch
director and i'm delighted to see all of you here today. i think the interest in foreign policy in the wake of other presidential election is certainly evident by the standing room only crowd that we have here today. we are now already into the process of transition. transition even with the same president. transitions are the most fluid and receptive moments in the presidential cycle to have an impact on the policy process. and so i'm, i take it, as a good sign there is so much interest in the foreign policy process by your presence here today. now i think that the transition from a first to a second obama administration may of course begin the day after an election but it doesn't end on inauguration day. this process is going to continue for some time. as the president's new or old team takes shape and where necessary seeks confirmation. as the new old team goes through the inevitable period of reassessment and redefinition of priorities and opportunities, and as other issues, domestic issues, fiscal cliff, for example, impacts foreign policy, and let's not forget as the world recalibrate
a major financial crisis and engulf us in a foreign policy that would overextend us and undermine our national security. to achieve these goals i thought the government would have had to shrink in size and scope, reduce spending, change the monetary system, and reject the unsustainable cost of policing the world and expanding the american empire. the problems seemed to be overwhelming and impossible to solve, yet from my viewpoint, just following the constraints based on the federal government by the constitution would have been a good place to start. just how much did i accomplish? in more ways according to conventional viss wisdom my off and on career in congress from 1976 to 2012, accomplished very little. no named legislation, no named federal buildings or highways, thank goodness. in spite of my efforts the government has grown exponentially, taxes remain cessive, and a prolific increase of incomprehensible regulations continues. wars are constant, and pursued without congressional declaration, deficits rise to the sky, poverty is rampant, and dependency on the federal government
american. and all three are very conservative on foreign policy. some domestic policies, they will find ortiz and rubio will slightly lead some of the charge in the republican ranks in the senate to adopt some kind of comprehensive immigration reform. i think the time has come for the country to do comprehensive reform. as i have said many times over the last year or two, immigration reform is going to change the politics of the nation just by the nature of who eventually becomes or is able to regularize their status and be able to vote. it was ronald reagan in 1986 who signed into law the last comprehensive immigration reform, which allowed about 3 million people to regularize their status -- most of them hispanic. within five years, those people were able to vote. effecting much of what happened in the clinton era in terms of what was happening in democratic resurgence. i think this time around, we're talking 11 million to 12 million people. immigration reform is accomplished next year, did you can assume within five, six, seven years many of those people will then be able to enter th
-- statehood party in puerto rico. issueset's talk about and how they impacted voters. foreign policy, what were voters' attitudes about foreign policy issues? guest: the exit poll asked people what their most important issue was. the economy was way up on top, almost 3/5ths of people said the economy was the number-one issue. the percentage who said that foreign policy was the most important issue was down in the single digits. that is not the driver. foreign policy is usually not the biggest driver. it is worth noting that those voters who said that foreign policy was the most important issue, president obama won that group. host: that made for about 5%. the economy, 59% put that as the most important issue. federal budget deficit, 15%. talk about how the health care law played into voters' attitudes? 18% said it was the most important issue. guest: that is an important thing. almost one in five voters said that health care was the most important issue. the president won roughly three- quarters of that vote. throughout the republican primaries, the issue of obamacare was a huge rallying c
. we are not going to have a foreign policy shop stocked with architects of the iraq war. we are not going to do it. we had the chance to do that if we wanted to do that, as a country. and we said no, last night, loudly. now, to be fair. if you are a conservative or if you are rooting for the republicans, a few things did go your way. republicans did not lose that senate seat that they might have lost in arizona. jon kyl's old senate seat goes to another republican, to jeff flake. also, republicans did not lose that other senate seat they might have lost in nevada, the old jon ensign seat that was given to dean heller. it stays with him. and while president obama carried 28 states last time, he carried 26 or 27 states this time, depending on how florida goes. that means republicans did lose everything else, but got back indiana and also north carolina. so it was not a totally hopeless night for republicans. also, hey, remember the crazy thaddeus mccotter seat in michigan, where thaddeus mccotter screwed up and they had to run this reindeer herder, santa claus impersonator for
: let's go to foreign policy because "the washington times" as this headline -- scott wilson, do you expect that he does that? troops on the ground? guest: i do not expect troops on the grand. as far as the president would go in syria, the next step is some kind of a no-fly zone. you will start seeing the model that he put in place and advocated for in libya. he is someone who moves incrementally. the next real step is the first plunge into military would be directly harming the rebels. they do not know the rebels that well. they do not want to start sending heavy weapons to groups that are clearly influenced by islamists. so that has been one caution. then the next step would likely be considering some sort of international no-fly zone like what took place in libya. host: iran's nuclear program? do we know what he might do? guest: i think in terms of old assertions of next steps, some of that may wait for the next secretary of state. this is something that the next secretary of state would be shepherding through and then stick it in somebody else's lap. it is probably strategically
in the christian conservative community. it does seem, to me, to have evolved. can you talk about foreign policy or gay individuals and how the christian community is now or conservative christian community is looking at those issues? >> yeah. i mean, we're still looking at the postelection survey that we, um, commissioned, that we got very early this morning, about 5 a.m. but the preliminary evidence is pretty consistent with what i've seen throughout my career, you know? there's a tendency to sort of caricature and stigmatize voters of devout faith and sort of suggest that they live in trailer parks, and they're poor, not educated and easy to command, and they cling to their guns and their religion, and they vote on gay marriage and abortion. not true. if you look at the evangelicals who voted yesterday, they voted on the economy and jobs by the exact same percentage that the entire electorate did. to put it in biblical terms, it rains on the righteous and the unrighteous alike. so evangelicals and faithful catholics are underwater on their mortgages. they're also struggling. they're trying to
on filibuster reform. the president wheen tile always going to have work to do on the foreign policy front. he likely mr. see if we can work a deal with iran, and forge a new relationship with china. russia is indicating an interest in working with the u.s. on nuclear non-proliferation, and there is the ongoing volatility in the middle east. all of these as the administration undergoes significant personnel and cabinet changes that come with a second term. we're back with more after the break. stay with us. ♪ >>tax cuts don't create jobs. the golden years as the conservatives call them, we had the highest tax rates, and the highest amount of growth, and the highest amount of jobs. those are facts. >>"if you ever raise taxes on the rich, you're going to destroy our economy." not true! what we need are people prepared for the careers of our new economy. by 2025 we could have 20 million jobs without enough college graduates to fill them. that's why at devry university we're teaming up with companies like cisco to help make sure everyone is ready with the know-how we need for a new
records showed she has called the shotos important foreign policy decisions. three times it is reported that she veto-ed the bin laden raid until she gave the nod and she was involved in calling the shots on libya in not giving security. it is rumored that she was involved and she did go in and would be the person. >> steve: was she involved in the benghazi stuff? we'll find out if they have hearings next week. they can always say classified. >> we have a lot of questions. >> steve: we thank you for dropping by. >> my pleasure. >> steve: next on the run day. another bush about to run for office? we have details straight ahead. and feel like getting away without emptying your wallet. best value vacation where you can treach your dollar. ♪ ♪ cleaner energy, while protecting our environment. across america, these technologies protect air - by monitoring air quality and reducing emissions... ...protect water - through conservation and self-contained recycling systems... ... and protect land - by reducing our footprint and respecting wildlife. america's natural gas... domestic, abundant,
a different debate in this election, during this election that would have involved a judgment, foreign policy, management, competence, and a lot of other issues that were just never raised because nobody knew any of this. look, i actually spoke with general petraeus on september 10. i happened to be at the washington nationals game and there were a wunsch of wounded warriors there, we were all talking to them. i spent five minutes talking to petraeus, secretary or third time maybe i met him. nice guy, great guy. this is not about whether he's a nice person or he served his country proudly. this is about the fact that the american people were not told and the president apparently is not being forth coming about this, about what the f.b.i. knew, why they were investigating private e-mail accounts after six or seven jaraing e-mails were sent. why is the f.b.i. even looking into those? >> gretchen: that's my question because according to these source, they say it was a close call as to whether or not the f.b.i. should have even opened a case initially. so something is not being told about that wh
through foreign policy magazine, tom ricks, author of "the generals." not everything that you found is necessarily that great about modern day generals today. >> before we go there, start with the model general. you say the model general was general george marshall who gave his generals a few months to succeed, die or be relieved. >> that was accountability. that was the way they worked in world war ii. you get out there and if you can't do the job, we will get rid of you. 155 division commanders in the army in world war ii. of the guys who commanded, 16 were fired. what -- it was a darwinian process. very hard-nosed, not gentle. and they moved up guys who could succeed which is why we know names today like ridgway, gavin and eisenhower. eisenhower began 1940 as lieutenant colonel, executive officer of an infantry regiment. marshall reached out and said that's who you need to be supreme allied commander. >> how did marshall rise the way he rose without going to battle. having the battle scars of world war i or world war ii. >> it was interesting. marshall didn't know him particularl
with the president and shares his views on foreign policy. well, two different countries, two very different stories. iran's defense minister now claiming that two iranian planes did shoot at a u.s. drone over the persian gulf. iran claims the drone was within its airspace when fired upon. the white house has said the drone was flying in international airspace. the unmanned drone was not damaged. >> lady liberty lighting up new york harbor for the first time since super storm sandy hit. the statue serves as a beacon of hope for other storm victims. liberty island was badly damaged during the storm. bring and stone walkways were torn up and docks ripped apart. power is also out. so crews are using a temporary lighting system powered by generators to light up the statue. it is shut down indefinitely until repairs can be made. >> i know a lot of people would go live in the crown right now because they are still without power. >> two weeks later. >> they are miserable in parts of new york, new jersey and connecticut and continuing our coverage of sandy's aftermath the power still out for hundreds of tho
security foreign policy team in the days leading up to the revelation unwelcome and surprising and shocking to the president two days after he was re-elected because it happened. >> all of this tension, too, within the administration now between the justice department, between the fbi -- >> absolutely. >> -- and the cia. this question of whether to tell the president, when to tell the president -- >> whether to tell anyone. >> along those lines -- >> they made a decision which i think will come in ultimately for a fair amount of criticism which is the decision not to tell the president about it. >> i want to ask andrea a question, not a glib question but a serious question because you have covered powerful men for the last chunk of years, of all walks of life. i want to redirect to what's important. is it fair to say we should not in any way be surprised when men of power, conquers, village leaders are also womanizers, that one could argue that goes with the profile, and can we stop going -- when it happens? >> frankly, you know, that's what foreign diplomats have been saying in the last da
administrations to share information with those of us that are supposed to make critical foreign policy decisions and the budget process. very unwilling, and certainly this is another case of the. but i was struck as well that, you need to tell me the head of the cia uses gmail? [inaudible] >> to communicate? it just struck me that i'm very concerned about the. and, obviously, there will be some areas into this but i see this coming, and apparently he has agreed to testify, as he should, like everybody involved should be testifying in his and provide as much openness as possible. i look forward to the committee taking a lead on that. [inaudible] >> some of your colleagues on ssi, senate republicans are time of making a deal with with democrats to find a compromise. first of all, what do you make of those efforts? second, how far are you willing to go to to strike an immigration deal with democrats? >> well, that is a good question and i wouldn't have been surprised if i didn't hear it. i think that, i seen a bit of a pattern over the years of people coming into this congress and taking a look at
Search Results 0 to 30 of about 31 (some duplicates have been removed)